Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[majormadmax]

The correct response to the question is "To bring the firearm into compliance with ATF rules".

Any legal response should be accepted as there is no requirement codified in law as to the allowable reasons to build a SBR.

Plus, the ATF really doesn't have a "say" in the matter. Unless the reason is an "illegal" one, it should be approved.

It's just the ATF dragging their feet on approving applications...

To be honest, I was tempted to put "to finally make this thing legal!"

There's a rumor of a Form 1 on the Interwebz which has “zombies” as the reason, and it was approved.

Don’t know if it's for real, but it should be!!

 

[oldag]

Does temporary make them legal today?

It means you can't be arrested for it (legally, anyhow) while the injunction is in effect.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It means you can't be arrested for it (legally, anyhow) while the injunction is in effect.

This is what I was asking.
Thanks.

 

[PinnedandRecessed]

Any legal response should be accepted as there is no requirement codified in law as to the allowable reasons to build a SBR.

Plus, the ATF really doesn't have a "say" in the matter. Unless the reason is an "illegal" one, it should be approved.

It's just the ATF dragging their feet on approving applications...

To be honest, I was tempted to put "to finally make this thing legal!"

There's a rumor of a Form 1 on the Interwebz which has “zombies” as the reason, and it was approved.

Don’t know if it's for real, but it should be!!

If you're waiting for someone to ask what you entered into the reason line that got the ATF all butthurt, I'll bite.

 

[V-Tach]

Yes my Son put Zombies as one of the reasons for his SBR several years ago and it was approved. I have a copy of his Form 1 somewhere here if proof is needed over my word......

I also expect the SCOTUS to nix this current injunction...............

 

[majormadmax]

If you're waiting for someone to ask what you entered into the reason line that got the ATF all butthurt, I'll bite.

I simply put "Texas"

I didn't think any more needed to be said.

Seriously, I meant to change it before submitting my form, but forgot.

Still, if "zombies" was approved, my justification should have been as well!

 

[seeker_two]

I also expect the SCOTUS to nix this current injunction...............

Roberts and Barrett are cut from the same cloth as Pence....

 

[popper]

Yup, seeker, the reason for my comment.

 

[BigRed]

Nationwide Injunction

BREAKING PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION NATIONWIDE! This is NOT a drill!! Britto v. ATF

BREAKING PISTOL BRACE INJUNCTION NATIONWIDE! This is NOT a drill!! Britto v. ATF#atf #2ndamendment #pistolbrace Link to decisionhttps://t.co/kGvgcECRfRSuppo...

www.youtube.com

God Bless Texas.

 

[Bozz10mm]

To be honest, I was tempted to put "to finally make this thing legal!"

Ha. That probably would have been acceptable.

 

[vmax]

Difference without distinction, it’s in the Code of Federal Regulations as the implementing rule for GCA68 and carries the weight of law.

It shouldn't
But that's how I see it.

A federal agency shouldn't be able to write words on paper that can put a citizen in prison especially for doing something that is considered as common and reasonable

 

[G O B]

Authority vs. Ability.
Whether or not the LEGAL authority exists, they still retain the ability to use armed thugs against you. The Courts may exonerate you, but they STILL GOT YOU! The process IS the punishment.
This is the how the Demoncrats beat you down. The DOJ has become the Stasi.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Any legal response should be accepted as there is no requirement codified in law as to the allowable reasons to build a SBR.

Plus, the ATF really doesn't have a "say" in the matter. Unless the reason is an "illegal" one, it should be approved.

It's just the ATF dragging their feet on approving applications...

To be honest, I was tempted to put "to finally make this thing legal!"

There's a rumor of a Form 1 on the Interwebz which has “zombies” as the reason, and it was approved.

Don’t know if it's for real, but it should be!!

I think the most common response to that question is: For all lawful (or legal) purposes.

 

[AKM47]

Check this out, no more NFA, if we are lucky

 

[majormadmax]

I think the most common response to that question is: For all lawful (or legal) purposes.

It is, but there is no defined response required by law...

 

[Otto_Mation]

Anybody know the answer to these hypothetical questions? Assume you have a registered SBR. Can you remove the stock from your registered SBR and take it across state lines as a pistol without an ATF permission slip?

Assume the brace rule gets struck down and braced pistols are legal (again). Could you install a brace on it and take it across state lines without the permission slip?

Or is it always treated as SBR no matter what form it is in because it has been registered?

 

[Renegade]

Anybody know the answer to these hypothetical questions? Assume you have a registered SBR. Can you remove the stock from your registered SBR and take it across state lines as a pistol without an ATF permission slip?

Assume the brace rule gets struck down and braced pistols are legal (again). Could you install a brace on it and take it across state lines without the permission slip?

Or is it always treated as SBR no matter what form it is in because it has been registered?

yes
yes
no

 

[benenglish]

Check this out, no more NFA, if we are lucky

The video didn't address that question at all. That thumbnail may be the worst bit of clickbait I've seen this year.

ETA - Besides, the Heller decision pretty much makes the NFA bulletproof. That's been addressed here, before. I just did a quick search and I've been over that ground 9 times so I won't bore folks with doing it again. The NFA, at least the part about machine guns, won't be struck down by this court or by any SCOTUS I can imagine in the future.

 

[Renegade]

The video didn't address that question at all. That thumbnail may be the worst bit of clickbait I've seen this year.

ETA - Besides, the Heller decision pretty much makes the NFA bulletproof. That's been addressed here, before. I just did a quick search and I've been over that ground 9 times so I won't bore folks with doing it again. The NFA, at least the part about machine guns, won't be struck down by this court or by any SCOTUS I can imagine in the future.

Bruen changed everything. The guidance it gives makes almost all gun control laws unconstitutional. But it is not being followed, and I agree NFA will not be struck down.

Heller just said you can have a handgun in your home. If you mean the dicta, then yes it indicates this current court is not going to touch NFA.

 

[majormadmax]

Anybody know the answer to these hypothetical questions? Assume you have a registered SBR. Can you remove the stock from your registered SBR and take it across state lines as a pistol without an ATF permission slip?

Assume the brace rule gets struck down and braced pistols are legal (again). Could you install a brace on it and take it across state lines without the permission slip?

Or is it always treated as SBR no matter what form it is in because it has been registered?

Unless it is removed from the registry, it is an SBR no matter what stock you have on it.